Jones/ESPNMAG

And you are doing nothing but trolling. JDV was less of a troll than you. You two are equal in your attention whoring.

 

No - I like the piece. Just thought it an odd location for Jones.
It would be like seeing an story written by Stewart Scott in The New Yorker.

 

Care to translate that into English?

 

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a fucking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

 

Agreed with the caveat that the genre of end-of-year-review pieces isn't exactly populated by a Murderer's Row of legendary journalism.

 

Are other professions filled with so many whiny, thin-skinned professionals?

 

OK, because Elliotte asked, and I respect him as someone who's probably already seen the Canadiens exhibit at the Hockey HOF while I have not, I will attempt to present a substantive reply to one of CL's critiques -- namely, his problem with Part III, the point of which section seems fairly obvious to me.
(I will leave aside any response to the fourth-grade snarkery attending the basic point.)
The section begins with one athlete talking about an encounter with one president, and moves from there to a general discussion of how these two men -- and athletes/celebrities/etc. -- maintain and/or rehabilitate the public personae that developed around them during the peak of their respective career. Secondarily, it seems to be a nuanced study of how we define public figures -- do we define them by the good they have done, will do, and continue to do, or by the worst mistakes/crimes/blunders/rumors of same with which they are involved. Can they come back from the latter? Should they? Is that something they can do, or something we allow them to do? As for Tyree, it seems that he doesn't want the sum total of himself to be one catch in the SB. Albeit, it's a lower level of concern than Clinton's or Armstrong's, but as a microcosmic perspective, I think it works.
Therefore, I do not believe that you can find three random people and do the same thing, and I think an argument based on that premise fails.

 

Hi everyone. I started this thread. Because I enjoyed Jones' piece. Not because I think he is a god. Just because I thought it was cool that he did it, that I enjoyed it, and that a magazine in a down economy would devote that many pages to something that, let's face it, most don't view as essential journalism these days. but since Evil Bastard has pooped all over all our keyboards, lemme just help him out. EB: you fucking idiot. Jones says clearly in the piece that Armstrong and Tyree are two opposite sides of legacy. The section is about legacy.

Now, i feel better.

 

I like you already.

 

Oh well, while I'm here I might as well jump in. The folks who think ESPN Mag sucks because of all the hip-hop graphics and whatnot are probably still reeling from its early incarnation and will always find fault with a publication that is design and photo heavy. In truth, the front of that mag is way better and meatier than it used to be and the features are as strong as anything you'll see in SI, and they're often way more useful. I think it's a smart rag. Smarter still for adding Jones to a roster with Thompson, Keown, Fleming and Wickersham. If you disagree, fine. But of all the ESPN properties, the magazine is the one with the most independent voice. If you let one Stu Scott sidebar kill that for you, then good luck finding your way out of the forest.